4 ms·

Not if you have decent public transportation. This is probably a novel concept in America, but in most other parts of the developed world a decent public trans

Not if you have decent public transportation. This is probably a novel concept in America, but in most other parts of the developed world a decent public transportation allows one to live car-free. I use my car so rarely that I am considering selling it.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Possibly. I don't live in America.
qsort 4y ago
In most of Europe, many people (and especially many among the poorest) don't live in big city centers that are well served by public transport. If you can do without, more power to you, but most people need cars. Not ebikes, not scooters, none of that electric hip stuff. They need cars.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Well then I suggest they don't replace their car with an ebike and let people who don't need their car use this subsidy instead.
  - qsort 4y ago
    I'm contesting the claim that "in most parts of the world one can live car-free". It isn't the case, even more so in the case of the poorer constituency this subsidy is aimed to.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  Most people need cars may be true now, but it's not a law of nature. These things affect each other. The village I was raised has about 8000 inhabitants. That sounds like sparsely populated and indeed, it has no good public transport connection - the closest light rail station is 5 km and there's no bus. But within a 10 km circle, you'll find 14 towns and villages, with a combined citizenship of ~60 000 people. And within 20 km, you'll find 6 actual cites with a combined citizenship of > 500 000 people. You could run an actual public transport network there. But outside the cities and some light rail, it doesn't really exist - there's just a few bus lines that run every hour or so. Why? Because people have cars. When they tried to set up a bus line for that 5km to the light rail (which runs every 15 minutes, until late night), nobody would take it. People took the cars because they were used to it and didn't want to rely on public transport - especially since that was explicitly branded as "trial" - why change habits? And now, that bus no longer runs and people have to take the car. Public transport thrives of network effects, but these are hard to establish. I believe it can be done, but only if you have an actual plan and the will to pull it through. It's a marathon, not a sprint as they always say. If you're getting into regions where public transport is really hard to provide, then you're very quickly away from "most people need cars", because these regions may be large, but very few people actually live there. Let them use cars. Go for the large chunk that should not need cars.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Where I live in Switzerland my very rural village of 5k people had a regular train connection and a regular bus going to village up hill area where my parents used used to live. Switzerland is somewhat exceptional with even small villages being connected by very regular trains, but its very possible. And this is not some place where there are lots of other larger villages around.
- baby 4y ago
  A minority of people live in such places btw
- panick21_ 4y ago
  You don't need to live in city centers to make this perfectly feasible. My city is 70k people and its perfectly fine without a car or bike. Around this city, there are many smaller towns from 20k to 5k. In almost all of them its mostly feasible to live in without a car. Before I moved out of my parents house, I lived in a 5k village about 25min by car outside of a 70k city. My parents have literally a herd of cows next to their property. And I live there just fine without a car. The idea that you somehow need to be Paris density to have decent public transport is just not true. And that was before E-Bike was even an option. I used to take the normal bike for all activities in the village and that was fine too. With a modern E-Bike, it would be very easy.

robertlagrant 4y ago

Possibly. I don't live in America.

qsort 4y ago

In most of Europe, many people (and especially many among the poorest) don't live in big city centers that are well served by public transport. If you can do without, more power to you, but most people need cars. Not ebikes, not scooters, none of that electric hip stuff. They need cars.

adrianN 4y ago
Well then I suggest they don't replace their car with an ebike and let people who don't need their car use this subsidy instead.
- qsort 4y ago
  I'm contesting the claim that "in most parts of the world one can live car-free". It isn't the case, even more so in the case of the poorer constituency this subsidy is aimed to.
Xylakant 4y ago
Most people need cars may be true now, but it's not a law of nature. These things affect each other. The village I was raised has about 8000 inhabitants. That sounds like sparsely populated and indeed, it has no good public transport connection - the closest light rail station is 5 km and there's no bus. But within a 10 km circle, you'll find 14 towns and villages, with a combined citizenship of ~60 000 people. And within 20 km, you'll find 6 actual cites with a combined citizenship of > 500 000 people. You could run an actual public transport network there. But outside the cities and some light rail, it doesn't really exist - there's just a few bus lines that run every hour or so. Why? Because people have cars. When they tried to set up a bus line for that 5km to the light rail (which runs every 15 minutes, until late night), nobody would take it. People took the cars because they were used to it and didn't want to rely on public transport - especially since that was explicitly branded as "trial" - why change habits? And now, that bus no longer runs and people have to take the car. Public transport thrives of network effects, but these are hard to establish. I believe it can be done, but only if you have an actual plan and the will to pull it through. It's a marathon, not a sprint as they always say. If you're getting into regions where public transport is really hard to provide, then you're very quickly away from "most people need cars", because these regions may be large, but very few people actually live there. Let them use cars. Go for the large chunk that should not need cars.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Where I live in Switzerland my very rural village of 5k people had a regular train connection and a regular bus going to village up hill area where my parents used used to live. Switzerland is somewhat exceptional with even small villages being connected by very regular trains, but its very possible. And this is not some place where there are lots of other larger villages around.
baby 4y ago
A minority of people live in such places btw
panick21_ 4y ago
You don't need to live in city centers to make this perfectly feasible. My city is 70k people and its perfectly fine without a car or bike. Around this city, there are many smaller towns from 20k to 5k. In almost all of them its mostly feasible to live in without a car. Before I moved out of my parents house, I lived in a 5k village about 25min by car outside of a 70k city. My parents have literally a herd of cows next to their property. And I live there just fine without a car. The idea that you somehow need to be Paris density to have decent public transport is just not true. And that was before E-Bike was even an option. I used to take the normal bike for all activities in the village and that was fine too. With a modern E-Bike, it would be very easy.